earthtimes.org | Hudson Institute | September 12, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
. . . more
No. The governemt needs to get out of the business of paying for abortions that aren’t medically neccesary. What I meant was that the portion of funding that goes to Planned Parenthood to pay for abortions should be shifted to other organizations that promote adoption and assist unwed mothers. That portion of their funding that is directed towards contaception, counseling and STD and pregnancy testing is not morally objectionable and could be maintained.
Of course we run into the same problem highlighted in the discussion of the Boxer amendment: money from government payments (for non-abortion related actities) are fungible, and eventially end up in the same pot, or general account, that funds that pay for abortions are drawn from. It’s a difficult situation because on one side the pro-choice people are saying, “These neanderthals don’t even want women to learn about birth control so they can avoid getting pregnant”, and on the other side the pro-lifers ar saying, “Abortion is their real agenda, every thing else is just a cover.”
Eventually legislation will have to passed requiring organizations involved in family planning that receive public funds to legally and financially seperate themselves from that part of their organization that promotes or provides abortion and outlaw transfers of funds between the two This will undoubtedly create a political uproar, but the Pro-Life movement can head some of that off by making it clear that it’s not the prevention of unplanned pregnacies it objects to, only their termination.
I find the parallels between the abortion and slavery issues increasingly compelling on a number of levels. During the eighteen fifties, angry mobs in southern cities attacked and threatened to lynch abolitionists who denounced slavery, while the attempted extradition of a captured escaped slave nearly caused a riot in Boston. The people who bomb abortion clinics see themselves as modern day John Browns, animated bu religious fervor to strike at an unspeakable wrong. In may ways attitudes towards abortion are that polarized in the United States right now. We urgently need a dialogue to bridge the gulf between the two sides and promote a culture of life.
Missourian writes: “America is blessed with a 300 year supply of coal, all within our own boundaries.”
I think if you look at that figure, you’ll find that it’s valid only at current rates of consumption. If you assume a constant growth in the rate, then that 300 year figure shrinks rapidly. At 6 percent annual growth, the 300 year supply drops to something like 50 years. Work through it in an Excel spreadsheet with different percentages and you’ll see what I mean.
Michael writes: “Jim posts more often than anyone else. The sheer volume of his posts means that his viewpoint tends to dominate.”
Ok, let’s look at the sheer volume. I did a little survey this morning, looking at the lead articles on the main page that had comments. What I found was of the ten lead articles with comments on the blog, I posted comments to five of them. Of the articles with comments, there were 286 comments. 32 of those were mine, or 6 percent. Half of those comments were posted to the “How poor are the poor” thread — 16 out of 105 comments, or 15 percent. The articles on the main blog page were posted from August 18 through September 18, which means that I post an average of one comment per day.
What happens is that I might not post for a week or two — certainly a time of great bliss for Christopher — then post a lot on a particular topic. Suddenly I’m “dominating” the blog.
A number of my recent posts were not on religious topic — global warming, whether employers mistreat employees, whether J. D. Crossan is a scholar or not. Surely these are not matters of Orthodox faith.
When I do post on topics that involve religion or faith, I try to be respectful of the other participants. I don’t say things like “you’re all a bunch of idiots,” or “you’re all going to hell!” From what I have heard from Fr. Hans, and from what I know about him in other venues, he likes the give and take of opposing points of view. So I feel free to beat him up, and I expect him to beat me up.
Michael: “His persistence in denying everything substantial within Orthodox thought is irritating. Especially since he has actually read Orthodox literature and attended a few services, both of which he professes to find beautiful and “moving”. I sometimes think he has read more Orthodox material than Dean has. Still, Jim refuses to understand Orthodox thought because he refuses union with Christ.”
To be clear, I haven’t been to Orthodox services. I do have a number of recordings of Orthodox liturgy or Orthodox-inspired music, have studied iconography, have visited Orthodox churches during their public festivals, have read a number of books by Orthodox authors, and so on.
Christopher writes: “Someone like Jim, who explicitly admits he “uses” this site to “sharpen his philosophy”, to point out his behavior is personal yes.”
Well, “sharpen philosophy” is a bit narrow. One thing I hate is always discussing things with people who agree with me. Once in a while is fine, but not all the time. Let’s say that I value the test of ideas. When you, Missourian, Fr. Hans, Tom C, Michael, D. George, and others rip into my ideas, I think that’s great. Bring it on. Personal attacks — I don’t see the point. But when it comes to ideas I want to be pushed and probed.
My exposure to Orthodoxy has changed me in many ways — in ways that people here will never know, even as I disagree with them on many fundamental issues. As the prophet Isaiah noted “so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” The Word has it’s own purpose, it’s own timeline, it’s own audience. It is not bound by human expectations or hopes.
Fr. Hans: “A blog that actually examines ideas in depth and detail has to be moderated, requires select contributors . . . ”
One hopes that outsiders will be able to observe discussions, if not participate in them. Best wishes on your new venture.
Note 53. Jim writes:
The blog, in fact the entire site, will be open to anyone to read. But I don’t see the blog serving the same function as this one. It will be more focused, less polemical (in the good sense of the term), basically a “meeting of the minds” type of thing — at least that is the plan. Have to see if it will fly of course.
I’ll have a complete announcement on this after September 23, when the new issue of AGAIN is released. It’s a project that I and a few other people have been working on for the last three years.
And yes, I don’t mind the push and pull of opposing views.
check out:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html?mod=hotair.com
“There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true.”
“The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined.”
Well then, we better close down the Lawrence Livermore National laboratory.
Increase in atmospheric moisture tied to human activities
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/dlnl-iia091707.php
Global Warming is happening and human activity causes it. End of story. To arrive at any other conclusion is simply willful ignorance.
First, the global warming deniers tell me that there is no proof that human activity causes climate change. Then they tell me that it is futile for the United States to adopt cleaner renewable energy technologies because China will still be spewing tons of pollutants into the air.
Well if China is spewing tons of pollutants into the air, isn’t that a human activity? Doesn’t that contradict your other comment trying to refute the link between carbon emissions and global warming with ridiculous stories about sun spots and natural cycles?
Get your story straight guys!
Global Warming is happening and human activity causes it. End of story. To arrive at any other conclusion is simply willful ignorance.
Yes yes, up until now, the earths climate has never changed – because humans were not numerous enough or industralized enough to produce the change. Since the Fall (or what ever it is you mark time with) the climate has held rock steady…;)
On a more serious note, increas in atmospheric moisture is a real good thing – more rain!
To repeat what Mr. Banescu already said, while we are bombing the blog with outside links:
I included below several must-see videos on the Glogal Warming debate. They make some key points that balance out the hysteria of the alarmists and the dogma and propaganda spread by Al Gore and his blind and unquestioning followers.
Beck’s global warming special with industry-funded “experts”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RxPNFy27kc&NR=1
Exposed: the Climate of Fear – Glenn Beck (full video)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7221788764767175476
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part I of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSo2VSsDqsk
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part II of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Venw45DNX5g
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part III of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRcIVBwrTVk
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part IV of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWaKP2Dj7Xc
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part V of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwQxCq59_g4
Exposed: The Climate of Fear – Part VI of VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcRc_UuK5To
Note 56. Dean writes:
I love the “deniers” that’s thrown in here, as if global warming –what? —non-deniers? have settled science on their side.
Dean,
Scientific and observational evidence tying warming to sun spots (undisputed by the global warming fanatics), plus geological evidence and ice-core samples going back hundreds of thousands of years, and historical evidence of the wild swings in atmospheric conditions (Little Ice Age in Europe!) equals “ridiculous stories about sun spots and natural cycles”? You know Dean, I am beginning to agree with Christopher that on many issues you lack a great deal of common sense and make idiotic arguments just to muddy the waters and contradict everyone else who wants to engage in substantive and objective discussions.
(PS – the reason I pointed to China, is because I was willing to suppose that even given your thin argument on human activity causing warming, Germany trying to significantly impact the CO2 levels by using solar panels was meaningless. It’s like using ONE bucket to attempt to bail out the sinking Titanic. While it may make one feel good that they’re “doing something”, it’s futile and useless from an objective, reasoned and logical perspective. You would be better off using the deck chairs to build a lifeboat or praying. Most of the dogmatic proclamations, arguments and “solutions” offered by you and other warming fanatics are how children think and act, not how mature and wise adults should conduct themselves.)
Dean, is there something in your mind-set that requires dogmatic answers? If there is, it is no wonder you prefer quoting the Pope over studying and understanding Orthodox Tradition. If there is, it is no wonder you prefer mass solutions that rarely solve anything over the application of spiritual principals in life. For Christians, the small stuff matters far more. Check out, Why the Small Things Matter.
A Christian has to learn to live with the reality of the mixture of good and evil in our lives created by our unwillingness to submit to the love of Jesus Christ. God’s commands to us our simple, but not simplistic, they are personal because He is person but they are not individualistic. They are communal without being tyrannical because it is only in communion with Him that we have being. Being a Christian requires acceptance of the antinomical reality of our lives in union with Christ. Dialectic dogmatism is not Christian.
I see absolutely nothing in the mass proposals to “end global warming” (an impossibility no matter what the cause) that reflect love of neighbor or love of God. In fact, they are redolent with denial of God and lack of concern for neighbor.
It is strange that you advocate dogmatic answers to global warming and refuse them where they really exist-abortion. I must admit I do not comprehend the premises that give rise to your logic (materialism is the only one that I can ascertain as a possibility). There is nothing that is recognizable to me as Orthodox Christianity. That saddens me.
RE: 55)
“Global Warming is happening and human activity causes it. End of story. To arrive at any other conclusion is simply willful ignorance.”
Writing such nonsense is itself willful ignorance of the complexity and controversy inherent in the subject. That the study in question was not a study of climate, but of computer models, and that the study authors found a guess about reality to be “plausible” precludes that kind of arrogant dismissal of all further debate.
Writing such nonsense…
Is simply part of the tactics, and dogma, of the left. It’s all about creating a scare, not actually looking at the facts. I for one think that we are in a natural warming trend, but that human caused CO2 has (and will) mildly increase the extant of this trend. That said, I think the trend is actually a good thing. If we were really interested in the morality of this warming trend, we would actually be trying to speed it up.
There is a pattern to dishonest debate that is clear and ubiquitous in the Anthropogenic Global Warming debate:
A says: I believe in X for reason 1
B says: But reason 1 is not valid
A: then I believe in X for reason 2
B: But reason 2 is not true either
A: Well, then I believe in X for reason 3
…Repeat ad infinitum…
Having an ever-growing list of bad reasons does not add up to a good reason. A thousand guesses do not add up to a certainty. Quite the opposite: the more estimates involved, the less certain the conclusion.
At the root of the whole theory is amaturish epistemology by those who perhaps just love the catastrophism and holocost of it all. Normality-deniers, every one of them. I suspect they are just bored.
It is not that they are bored, it is that they are demogouges seeking power. Thus their use of the big, bigger, biggest lie technique.
#55
WOW! I had no idea how serious this problem is! 0.41 kilograms per cubic meter per decade since 1988. Since 1988 was about 20 years ago that amounts to about 0.8 kilograms more moisture in every cubic meter. Pretty soon the oceans will be depleted with all that water going into the air, shipping routes will be disrupted, fish and whales will die, the salinity will increase to the point where toxic chlorine gas is released. Quick! Buy a compact fluorescent light bulb.
This press release illustrates perfectly the lunacy which has overtaken this issue. Room temperature air at 50% humidity holds about 10 grams per cubic meter. The only way you can get 0.8 kilograms of water into a cubic meter of air is to put it in a jar in the middle of the cube. So, here we have a press release from Lawrence Livermore that can’t even get this basic quantity correct. Then they compound the mistake by putting kg per meter squared in parentheses.
More moisture in the air does not implicate carbon dioxide anymore than it implicates the sun or any other natural source of warming. Plus, more moisture in the air probably leads to more clouds, which is a negative feedback to temperature.
The spectacle of a national laboratory putting out a press release to say that warmer air holds more moisture, and then botching the details, is really sad.
Plus, more moisture in the air probably leads to more clouds, which is a negative feedback to temperature.
This is an important point made by the scientists who are ‘global warming scare’ dissenters. Water vapor is many many times (orders of magnitude, can’t remember the exact number) more “powerful” as a climate change agent than CO2 (most atmospheric components are). Yet, according to most of the computer models relied upon by the global warming scare advocates show a significant increase in water vapor, which means more rain and global cooling – an inconsistency the advocates do not explain to the satisfaction of the dissenters…
Note 63. John Howard writes:
It’s not boredom. It’s secularized apocalyptic thinking. They take a doomsday motiff and create a narrative arround it. This round is global warming. Past rounds were population explosions. These narratives are legitimized by appeals to authority, in this case science.
Why are certain populations susceptible to this kind of thinking? One reason is that the teleology (Greek: telos – end) of the foundational cultural narrative of the West requires some kind of cataclysmic clash. It’s the only way to reconcile the conflict between good and evil. This functions as a self-evident axiom, but its source really lies in the book of Genesis. Eschewing recourse to the scripture however, the axiom must be necessarily secularized, that is, stripped of any transcendent reference, and so nature replaces word and spirit, and good and evil is given a concrete locus in actions that ostensibly defile or safeguard nature.
It’s interesting though, that nature, often seen as a benevolent goddess of sorts on one hand (the nuturer of life), is also perceived as a threatening demi-god on the other. Upset the balance, and this pristine source of all goodness will raise it’s head in destructive and beastly fury. The god of the global warmers resembles the god of Mani a lot more than the God of Abraham.
What upsets the balance? Sin, but it’s sin defined in a matrix of nature veneration that, again, takes different forms — global warming today, something different tomorrow. That’s what’s behind labelling global warming debunkers as deniers. It’s a deliberate attempt to lump the sinners in the same camp as holocaust deniers through the clever manipulation of language.
Father, you present Global Warming as a transitory ‘flash-in-the pan” popular mania, driven by some strange tree-hugging secular/pagan psuedo-theology. You smugly predict that hysteria over global warming will fade within five years, becoming a historical novelty or curiousity, like the hoola-hoop or the Nehru Jacket to amuse future generations.
While this is a glib and entertaining interpretation, good for a wry chuckle, it totally ignores the many significant and long-term changes to the environment that have been taking place now for nearly twenty years. Do you really think that the various concurrent events that occuring throughot the globe, like the increase in hurricanes and forest fires, or the melting of glaciers and permafrost, are mere coincidence? Do you reaaly expect trends like the melting of the Artic ice cap, for example, to reverse themselves in five years, in time for us to enjoy a good belly-laugh at the expense of those silly environmentalists?
That Druidic institution, The Financial Times reports:
http://www.ftd.de/karriere_management/business_english/:Business%20English%20Ice/253220.html
Are Russia and Canada sending ships to claim ownership rights in the Artic based on the expectation that the opening up of this area will last less than five years?
ABC News reports
Arctic Melting Leaves Countries Sparring
Canada, Russia, Greenland Debate Ownership of Northwest Passage, Oil Fields, Sept. 18, 2007
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3621021&page=1
Nations and major oil companies are preparing to invest millions, exploiting changes to the environment that will enable them to extract the mineral wealth inside the Artic Circle. I’m sorry, but this doesn’t sound like a flash-in-the-pan to me.
Tom C writes: “So, here we have a press release from Lawrence Livermore that can’t even get this basic quantity correct.”
I sent an email to the actual author of the article referenced in the press release, asking for a clarification. I couldn’t even find the original article. There is no “Sept. 17 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” It’s September 18 — but I couldn’t find the article there either, or any reference to the author. I’ll let you know if I hear anything from the author.
Apologies in advance to Christopher, who will no doubt denounce my “materialistic” attempt to discover the actual content of the article. Apologies also to Michael for “dominating” the discussion.
Note 69. Dean writes:
Not really. Rephrase your paragraph to read:
“Father, you present the collectivist wrapper around Global Warming as a transitory ‘flash-in-the pan” popular mania, driven by some strange tree-hugging secular/pagan psuedo-theology. You smugly predict that hysteria over global warming will fade within five years, becoming a historical novelty or curiousity, like the hoola-hoop or the Nehru Jacket to amuse future generations.”
…and you will be closer to my view.
Learn to separate science from ideology.
#69 Mr. Scourtes
How do you explain something like this:
“Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say.”
-Michael Schirber, LiveScience
June 29, 2005
“The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says.”
-Catherine Brahic, New Scientist
August 23, 2007
I’ll tell you how I explain it, along with the other hundred examples one could dredge up. It is a cultural phenomenon where lazy journalists who don’t truly analyze issues but instead present pre-written narratives, conspire with scientists whose careers depend on securing funding from government, to scare the public and thereby sell more papers and win more funding.
You are most exercised about the loss of ice in the arctic. Why? Why is that a problem for anyone? Polar bears have survivied for eons through all sorts of wide temperature swings. If the region is now open for shipping and natural resource extraction that is a good thing.
But what I’m really curious about is why we don’t hear about the latest antarctic data. Seems the antarctic is gaining ice and on a continent-wide basis has been cooling for some time now. Are you concerned about “climate change” in the antarctic? If not, why? I can list all kinds of problems that will occur if it gets too cold down there.
Those tree-huggers at ScientificAmerican.com report:
Sunny Outlook: Can Sunshine Provide All U.S. Electricity? Large amounts of solar-thermal electric supply may become a reality if steam storage technology works—and new transmission infrastructure is built , September 19, 2007
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=1FC8E87E-E7F2-99DF-3253ADDFDBEC8D41&pageNumber=1&catID=1
We were once the nation that put a man on the moon and hopefully have not yet succumbed to the Republican “Can’t-Do” vision of government. Once again, the only thing standing between America and energy independence is the entrench oil and coal industries, their lobbyists and minions in the media.
Why Christians should care about the environment by Professor Emeritus Martin Marty of the University of Chicago School of Divinity:
Religious Leaders Should Assail Hypocritical Views on Environment
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/martin_marty/2007/02/religious_leaders_and_environm.html
Not that Dean will be talked out of his “secularized apocalyptic thinking” thinking as Fr. Jacobse rightly puts it, but I just wanted to point out that his last link is from Martin Marty, whom I met once. The man is a sociologist, a modern secularized thinker if there ever has been one, a typical example of the “religious left”.
Dean, do us a favor and place all your crib’s and links in one or two emails per thread, instead of bombing the blog with one over long quote after another. That way, those of us who know better can simply skip them…;)
Dean, Note 73, so what’s preventing entrepreneurs from capitalizing on this amazing solution to energy generation? Don’t give us the tired and dogmatic BS we keep hearing from that crew: “only thing standing between America and energy independence is the entrench oil and coal industries, their lobbyists and minions in the media.” since it’s truly insulting and childish.
If what this article claims is true, then why aren’t Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, BS (Barbara Streisand), Michael Moore, Al Gore, Oprah, the Kennedys, Rockefellers, or the thousands of other liberal and leftists millionaires and billionaires capitalizing on such a reasonable and proven energy generation solution? Could it be because many billion dollars in “tax breaks” and gov’t subsidies are actually needed to make such an endeavor even remotely profitable and competitive? Nah, it’s just mean ol’ conservatives and environment hating right-wingers stopping progress from solving all the world’s energy problems.
Fr. Jacobse: Is this consistent with Orthodoxy? I like my planet as much as the next person, but, this is a bit much.
Is the idea of humans being “co-Creators” Orthodox? Does Genesis indicate that humans are here to “care for the Earth?”
Doesn’t Genesis place Earth at the disposal of humanity. Earth exists for Man, Man doesn’t exist to “care for the Earth?” Doesn’t the Bible fortell that the Earth will “wear out like a garment?”
Well, you could ask the Ecumenical Patriarch.
In Greenland, an interfaith rally for climate change
Patriarch Bartholomew is leading an interfaith shipboard symposium down the coast of Greenland to improve cooperation between religious and political leaders.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0912/p06s01-woeu.html
This makes me proud to be Orthodox.
Befuddled writes: “Doesn’t Genesis place Earth at the disposal of humanity. Earth exists for Man, Man doesn’t exist to “care for the Earth?” Doesn’t the Bible fortell that the Earth will “wear out like a garment?”
In your view does humanity consist of just the people around today, or also potential future generations? If the latter, then it seems that caring for the earth would be a necessary condition of having a livable planet on which future generations can exist. In my humble materialistic opinion.
Note 77. I have no idea where the term “co-creator” comes from. I just did a search of several different interpretations of scripture and I cannot find it. I can’t recall a reference either.
Further, the term is so fluid, it could mean anything to anyone. This is why you have to stick to scriptural terminology when speaking of the things of God. At least you have text and context to wrestle meanings from instead of the conceptual blandness offered in the paragraph you quoted.
And what purpose does the phrase “morale, impetus, insight, and a cooperative spirit” serve except to substitute a moral exhortation for clear thinking?
So no, in my opinion there is nothing remotely Orthodox in the statement. It has the same loopy ring that “co-redemptrix” had a few years back when some Catholic group wanted to elevate Mary to the point where she was practically the fourth person of the Trinity. Thankfully that idea died a swift and necessary death.
Genesis is clear. God created the heavens and the earth through the power of the spoken word. No man was around. Man was created out of the “dust of the ground” (the matter that was spoken into existence), and filled with the breath of God on the sixth day, the day before God “rested”. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be construed from the text that man somehow shared in God’s creative activity.
And yes, man’s assignment is to be stewards of the creation — it’s caretakers. This does not mean that man exists to serve the earth (what eco-radicals think). Nor does it mean that man can abuse the creation.
Finally, yes, the scriptures do indicate that the earth can wear old, but at the same time it says:
indicating that the final liberation of man from the clutches of death also will liberate the rest of creation.
Note 78. Dean writes:
It worries me that the Patriarch would be so quick to jump on an issue that is still contentious in the academy. If I were his advisor, I’d urge more caution — much like Pope Benedict shows:
If man-caused global warming ends up being another doomsday fad (which I believe it will), the Patriarch’s authority will take a big hit.
Patriarch Bartholomew’s authority rests on the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, i.e., God Incarnate. As an Orthodox bishop, he should approach the care of the environment from an Incarnational understanding. Unfortunately, nothing I have read of his indicates to me that he has an Incarnational understanding, but rather demonstrates an ideological emotionalism. To me, he has already abandoned the confession on which his authority rests.
His loopy pronouncements and his proclivity to look for ways to promote his own image and person especially in the midst of the hetrodox and pagan make me nervous, not proud.
Michael: Your comment reminded me of the title of one of my favorite Elvis Costello songs, “What’s so funny about peace, love and understanding?”
In this case I wanted to ask “What’s so ‘loopy’ about wanting to protect this earth for our children and future generations?”
I want to support to the teachings of Jesus Christ, love my neighbor, help the poor, promote a consistent ethic of life, and protect the earth that God created. But when I advocate on behalf of actually doing these things you beliittle me and offer some murky, opaque theological argument to convince me that I’m wrong. Now apparently even the Ecumenical Patrirach doesn’t meet your exactling standards. He’s not “incarnational” enough, whatever that’s supposed to mean. I haven’t a clue.
Note 83. Dean writes:
There is nothing loopy about it. In fact, is a God-given command. But we have intelligence too, Dean. We have to use it in order to discern how to carry out the command.
The virtue doesn’t lie in recognizing the command. It lies in how it is carried out, and this carrying out is informed by ideas about what constitutes the common good. However, some ideas will create different results than others, so we apply intelligence, foresight, planning — all the constitutents that raise man above the animals and inform the notion that man is the “steward” of the creation. (Genesis is perhaps one of the greatest books ever written. It is the narrative ground of true progress.)
So it is not enough to proclaim that one has the right motives. Motives, while indicating a proper (or improper) orientation toward things, are vivified by ideas. Ideas, however, have consequences. It’s the consequences, not merely the motives, that define the world in which future generations live.
Now, if we could just get your compatriots to recognize that aborting the future generation corrodes the virtue necessary to create a better future, we could make some real progress.
offer some murky, opaque theological argument to convince me that I’m wrong….He’s not “incarnational” enough, whatever that’s supposed to mean. I haven’t a clue.
Perhaps you are beginning to understand why some of us question your Orthodoxy, that is your Christian understanding. Fact is, you do not have a Christian worldview. You (allegedly) attend an Orthodox Church, but you think like a typical secularist…
So it is not enough to proclaim that one has the right motives. Motives, while indicating a proper (or improper) orientation toward things, are vivified by ideas. Ideas, however, have consequences. It’s the consequences, not merely the motives, that define the world in which future generations live.
Dean, do you any idea what Fr. Jacobse is saying with the above sentances? If so, how is it a response to your reaction to environmentalism, etc.? Really, we have been talking to you about this basic concept for years, but I do not believe you understand. Do you?
Yes – one could apply Father’s comment about motives and ideas not just to environmentalism but to a wider spectrum of movements. One notable recent example – the Neoconservative movement – springs to mind.
John Gray, a professor of European history at the London School of Economics has written a book entitled, Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1961492.ece
Dean, have you read “On the Incarnation” by St. Athanasius yet? Your comments indicate that you have not. Before you reply to what follows (if you ever do) read it at least once.
There is no continuum. One is either Incarnational or one is not. The Incarnation reveals and defines the proper interrelationships between God, Man and the rest of Creation. In light of the Incarnation, the Chicken Little syndrome disappears, political ideology is rendered meaningless, and sobreity can be reached. The earth and all on it are here at the pleasure of God. He is not separate from His creation. He gave Himself for it. His Blood will not be wasted.
We have the responsibility to increase the fruits it produces and return it to God in good shape. Indeed, it is part of working our our salvation, but we need not, should not, approach our task in a state of fear. As ususal, you tend to transfer actions that are individual and personal in nature to the mass action and authority of “government” wanting to force everyone to comply with your will. So, it appears does the Patriarch. That attitude is not Christian. If it were, Jesus would not have gone to the Cross, He would have come with an army of angels and sit on a worldly throne ruling us all. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he reject that opportunity as a tempation of Satan?
I must confess, I have not been able to make it all the way through most of what Patriarch Bartholomew has written on the subject because it was obvious to me that he was taking an idelogical approach that had very little to do with the Church or an Orthodox response. Way too many buzz words that are little more than emoticons. The “green” philosophy is pagan. Pagans and Christians simply have no common ground to address the issue other than in the most superficial manner. I see absoultely no reason to “dialog” with them on the subject. At best, it is a waste of time, at worst could become a denial of the Chrisitan faith. Calling him the “Green” Patriarch is, when one considers the philosphical foundaton of the “green” movement, little short of calling the Patriarch apostate which I am sure he is not. To the extent that his words have aligned the Patriarch with the “green” philosophy however, he has abandoned the knowledge and the hope the God Incarnate brings.
“To do the right deed for the wrong reason, is surely the greatest treason” T.S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral.
Because I reject your means, you accuse me of rejecting the care of the earth. That is sheer sophistry and indicates either an unwillingness to engage in serious conversation or a shallowness of thought that makes serious conversation impossible—probably both.
The state of the earth is not a political problem, it is not a technological problem, it is not an economic problem. The state of the earth reflects the state of our union (or lack thereof) with God. The cure is to preach the Gospel, preach Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. The acute environmental problems that exist are not going to be eliminated without addressing the spiritual problems that create the disruption, despoilment, and abuse that exists. Certainly there are pragmatic adjustments and responses that can be made to ameliorate the problems while effectively allowing us to meet our humen needs.
The Elvis song you quote is just another way of asking me when I stopped beating my wife. Again sheer, unadulterated sophistry with out serious content.
Read St. Athanasius!
#87 Michael
That was very well written.
I agree, Michael wrote a very eloquent and reasoned post in #87. He truly focused on the core issues and presente the proper Christian perspectives vs. the pagan undertones that permeate the radical environmental dogmas. It’s a privilege to be in the company of such clear and deep thinkers. A big Thank You also goes out to Fr. Hans for providing this venue!
Michael writes: “you tend to transfer actions that are individual and personal in nature to the mass action and authority of ‘government’ wanting to force everyone to comply with your will.”
So government action is “out” when it comes to the environment. Okay. Yet, in an issue like abortion, we bypass any talk about remedying the problem through spiritual reform, prayer, counseling and personal involvement and go straight to advocating the implementation of new laws (a tool of government). (Note: I think laws banning some abortions – and certainly PBA – would be perfectly democratic and reasonable.)
Consistency is a sticking point with me, and there seems to be a lack of it among our more Orthodox posters here on this issue, no?
Michael writes: “As ususal, you tend to transfer actions that are individual and personal in nature to the mass action and authority of “government” wanting to force everyone to comply with your will.”
What are these individual and personal actions? Most large-scale environmental issues are highly regulated by the government, and sometimes even intimately involve the government as vendor.
For example, the government sells mineral extraction rights to companies. The government leases forests for logging. The government regulates commercial fishing. Government permits are necessary for dams and power plants. The government regulates disposal of garbage, hazardous waste, medical waste, and so on. The resources of oil-producing countries are typically owned or largely controlled by those governments. Governments regulate the auto industry and set mileage and safety standards.
Given that large-scale environmental issues are almost always intimately involve the government, what is the “personal” action that is supposed to happen. If my fleet of fishing boats and floating canneries destroys your fishery, what is the Christian response to that? Stop eating fish?
RE: 87) In Dean’s post about John Gray, I’m not sure who is quoting who, but the interesting – to me – quote is:
“Nobody, he points out, seems ready to face the obvious conclusion: the goals of these projects were unattainable from the outset. ”
This raises for me a fundamental point: it is rarely the goals of a project that explain the motivation of the actors. It is the methods. A man may be “saving the world” but if his method is murder, I assume murder is his real pleasure. He may be “bringing god to the people” but if his method is to dress up like a king and stand at an oaken pulpit elevated far above a mass of kneeling supplicants, I assume that dressing like a king and blabbing at a silent kneeling crowd is his real pleasure. “Educating our nations future leaders” may be his stated goal, but I assume that forcing himself on other people’s children with truancy laws and forcing their parents to pay him through the extortion racket of taxation is his real pleasure.
All this by way of saying that actions not only speak louder than words, they are the only real speech. If there is a real and just god, he does not bother listening to the noise of words. He watches behavior. Therein lies good and evil, not in the word, but in the action.
Jim & James K: perfect examples of binary thinking.
Mr. Scourtes #83:
“In this case I wanted to ask ‘What’s so ‘loopy’ about wanting to protect this earth for our children and future generations?'”
Of course, nobody is saying it is “loopy” to want to protect the earth. But, making up straw men seems to be a passtime of yours (as evidenced by the later lengthy quote regarding neoconservatives, which has nothing to do with the issue at hand).
And then:
“But when I advocate on behalf of actually doing these things you beliittle me and offer some murky, opaque theological argument to convince me that I’m wrong.”
Because you don’t like theological arguments, and because I doubt I could improve on Mr. Bauman’s statements in any case, how about gracing us with an answer to this simple question:
Do you think it is or is not “loopy” when the Ecumenical Patriarch claims that humans cause earthquakes?
I personally think this and the EP’s other comments about the environment, which tend to be almost as irrational and uninformed, are an embarrassment to the Orthodox Church. But, I am curious about your reaction – particularly because you quoted this argument of the Patriarch.
Michael writes: “Jim & James K: perfect examples of bianary thinking.”
Not sure what that means, but I guess you done stuck it to us! Mission accomplished. Additional clarification or expansion of comments would be welcome.
Note 95. Jim Holman writes:
Michael is right. I caught it too. The only point extracted from the entire discussion was “government action” — as if that point was the only relevant and germaine idea expressed.
01011100. Spelled it wrong. Binary. Because I don’t agree with X I automatically agree with its opposite. It can also be called a dialectic of oppositions, dogmatic necessity any number of other things or it can be just sheer sophistry to avoid genuine discussion. The fact of the matter is that the point of what I was saying was entirely ignored and my thought miss represented all to paint me as an anti-government zealot.
Dean, last time I checked the Incarnation was not an opaque theological argument, but the very reason for our faith and the instrument of our salvation. If you are unable to comprehend even that little bit of the teaching of the Church, you really should stop claiming to be Orthodox.
Read St. Athanasius. He doesn’t use big words. He explains far more simply than I am able to because he really knows.
Dean, either the Incarnation of Jesus Christ means everything or it means nothing. There is no fence where you seem to think there is one.
Michael is right. I caught it too. The only point extracted from the entire discussion was “government action” — as if that point was the only relevant and germaine idea expressed.
Ah, but you assume they are here to “think” and “discuss” ideas. To so consistently “miss the point” and end up sounding like left wing political hacks, here to “counter” the “religious right”, they either ARE left wing political hacks, or are truly dim witted…
I am going to be gracious and assume they are left wing political hacks…that is Trolls…;)
prediction: They regroup and focus on “government action” for the next 20 posts, first claiming to simply be trying to “understand“, and then semi-politely asserting the usual left wing complaints…;(